Punjab State Electricity Board, Ludhiana Through Its Senior Xen Vs. Pankaj Kumar - Court Judgment

Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member:

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party, against the order dated 10.2.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short “District Forum”), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and the demand of Rs.69,540/- was quashed.

2. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant was having an NRS electric connection, bearing account No.AB01/0019X, which was installed in his shop where business of chemicals with the help of two employees was being carried on by him for earning his livelihood. The opposite party changed the meter in the last week of January, 2008 for the reasons best known to it. As per Rules, a spot report is required to be prepared to be signed by both the parties, but the same was not done in the present case. He did not receive any notice to visit ME Lab for testing of the meter. However, he received a bill dated 6.4.2008 in which the opposite party charged Rs.69,540/- as sundry charges without any details. When he approached it, he came to know that charges were on account of theft of power as per ME Lab report. He prayed for quashing the impugned notice.

3. Upon notice, the opposite party controverted the allegations and pleaded that AEE Technical Unit No.1 visited the premises of the complainant on 21.1.2008 and checked the electric connection in his presence and he signed the checking report prepared at site. As per that report, meter body, seals and MandT seals seemed to be tampered. The meter was removed, packed and sealed and was sent to ME Lab. The complainant was called to be present in the ME Lab. When checked in the presence of Mr.Sandeep, who disclosed himself to be Textile Engineer of the complainant, it was found that ME seals of the meter body were fake and impression of these seals were not resembling with the original seals impression. It was also mentioned that the ultra sound welding of the meter was also found tampered. A demand of Rs.69,540/- was raised as per Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Accordingly, the dismissal of the complaint was prayed.

4. After having gone through the evidence produced by the parties in support of their respective averments and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, the complaint was accepted by the District Forum, vide aforesaid order.

5. We have carefully gone through the records of the case.

6. According to Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, if on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he is required to provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by such person. As per the explanation appended to that Section, unauthorized use of electricity means the usage of electricity:-

“(i) by any artificial means; or

(ii) by a means not authorised by the concerned person or authority or licensee; or

(iii) through a tampered meter; or

(iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised; or

(v) for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorised.”

7. It is the specific averment of the opposite party that the connection of the complainant was checked on 21.1.2008 in his presence and he signed the checking report. As per this report, the meter body seals and MandT seals seemed to be tampered. The complainant was called to be present in the ME Lab. When checked in the ME Lab, ME seals of the meter body were found fake and impression of these seals were not resembling with the original seals impression. The ultra sound welding of the meter was also found tampered. Thereafter, the impugned notice was issued. That clearly shows that the opposite party proceeded under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for making the assessment.

8. It has recently been held by the Honble Supreme Court in U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. and ORS. v. ANIS AHMAD [2013(13) C.L.T. 226] that the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or association of consumers but it is limited to the dispute relating to “unfair trade practice” or a “restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider”; or “if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service”; or “hazardous service”; or “the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law”. After having dealt in detail about the different provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Honble Supreme Court held as under:-

 “(i) In case of inconsistency between the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act will prevail, but ipso facto it will not vest the Consumer Forum with the power to redress any dispute with regard to the matters which do not come within the meaning of “service” as defined under Section 2(1)(o) or “complaint” as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(ii) A “complaint” against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum.”

9. In view of the law so laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, the complainant cannot be held to be a “consumer” and the complaint filed by him does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The same could not have been entertained by the District Forum and was to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/opposite party is accepted, the order of the District Forum, accepting the complaint, is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the complainant to seek his appropriate remedy before the proper authority under the Electricity Act, 2003. The time spent by him before the District Forum and in this Commission while prosecuting the complaint and the appeal shall be excluded by that authority while computing the period of limitation for filing the appeal etc.

11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period because of the heavy pendency of the court cases.